Back to Authors

Lee, Sangil

Mayo Clinic

University of Iowa

Citations 2

Multi‐Factorial and Multi‐Component Fall Prevention Interventions Initiated From the Emergency Department: A Systemic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Mowbray, Fabrice I., Tarnovsky, Ian A., Lee, Sangil, Ryer, Suzanne , Maddow, Charles L., Carpenter, Christopher R. , Malsch, Aaron , Ragsdale, Luna , Liu, S X, Mowbray, Fabrice , Southerland, Lauren T , Mowbray, Fabrice , Harper, Kristie , Ryer, Suzanne , Carpenter, Christopher R , Malsch, Aaron J , Liu, Shan W , Southerland, Lauren T. , Tarnovsky, Ian, Lo, Alexander X.

Academic Emergency Medicine | April 25, 2026 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 4 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/acem.70245 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Fall risk screening and prevention interventions initiated from the Emergency Department (ED) are endorsed by current national guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ED‐based multi‐factorial and multi‐component interventions to prevent falls. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of interventions for fall prevention initiated in the ED for older patients (age ≥ 60 years). Multi‐component and multi‐factorial interventions were included. We excluded studies without a control or comparison group. The published literature was searched from 2019 to May 2024. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa tool for observation studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias v2 for randomized trials. A meta‐analysis was completed for the outcomes with multiple studies. Results The search resulted in 6312 abstracts with 2571 duplicates, for 3741 unique citations. A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review; 5 were rated as high risk of bias/low quality. The articles were heterogenous in the intervention type (8 multi‐factorial and 8 multi‐component), setting (ED focused vs. outpatient), intervention components (i.e., nurses, physicians, therapists), and size (103–1435 participants). The interventions did not decrease risk of falls at 3 months (risk difference 0.05 95% CI [0.00; 0.09]), 6 months (0.07 [−0.04; 0.18]) or 12 months (−0.02 [−0.11; 0.07]). ED revisits at 1 month (−0.01 [−0.03; 0.00]), 3 months (−0.04 [−0.14; 0.06]), and 12 months (0.02 [−0.05; 0.25]) were also unchanged. Mortality and hospitalization rates were also unaffected. Improvement in functional status was noted in 4 of 5 studies reporting this outcome. Conclusions Multi‐factorial and multi‐component fall prevention interventions initiated from the ED did not decrease falls or recurrent healthcare use. These interventions may improve functional status in older adults at fall risk. Comparisons are limited by the heterogeneity in types of interventions, intervention compliance, and timing of outcomes.
Motivating Factors for Participating in the Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0
Wang, Grace , Hooper, Catalina, Lee, Sangil, Coates, W. Stanley, Goldberg, Elizabeth M. , Bellolio, Fernanda, Ouchi, Kei, Oppen, James David van , Liu, S, Group, GED Guidelines Qualitative Study, Bellolio, Fernanda , Skains, Rachel M. , Coates, Wendy C , Goldberg, Elizabeth , Bellolio, M Fernanda , van Oppen, James D , Liu, Shan W , Skains, Rachel M , Gunaga, Satheesh , Campbell, Ronna L. , Ouchi, Kei

Academic Emergency Medicine | February 12, 2026 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/acem.70237 Get It

ABSTRACT Background One in five emergency department (ED) visits is by older adults aged 65+ years. Clinical practice guidelines are needed to optimize patient care by translating the best available evidence into actionable recommendations to guide person‐centered management for this medically complex and growing patient population. Our objective was to understand contributors' experiences and share best practices to inform other guideline working groups. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on thematic analysis with an interpretivist paradigm in June–July 2025, using semi‐structured interviews of Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines 2.0 contributors to understand their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, independently reviewed by team members, and reflexively coded to identify themes. Results We interviewed 18 participants. Four main themes emerged: (1) motivations for participation, (2) varying opportunities to be involved, (3) personal benefits, and (4) challenges for improvement. Participants contrasted the strengths of shared learning and development with the burdens of organization and coordination. Conclusion Contributors to the GED Guidelines 2.0 reported a positive experience. They joined because they wanted to contribute to better care of older patients and to achieve personal and professional goals. Many cited that their roles aligned with their strengths and expertise. They also gained skills and knowledge on systematic reviews and benefited from networking. Future groups planning a similar process should consider having multiple levels of leadership, experts in systematic reviews, regular reminders, and creative incentives to improve the process and foster improved networking opportunities within their disciplines.